![]() It is deliberately framed in terms of dimensions, to permit us to focus on their interaction and synergies, rather than asserting a pre-established lexical priority. The four-dimensional approach aims at providing an analytic framework to illuminate better the multi-facetted nature of inequality and to assist in determining whether actions, practices or institutions impede or further the right to equality. 7 Behind this is the basic principle that the right to equality should be located in the social context, responsive to those who are disadvantaged, demeaned, excluded, or ignored. Instead, drawing on the strengths of the familiar principles in the substantive equality discourse, a four dimensional principle is proposed: to redress disadvantage to address stigma, stereotyping, prejudice and violence to enhance voice and participation and to accommodate difference and achieve structural change. It is argued in this article that, whereas it is clear that the right to equality should move beyond a formal conception that likes should be treated alike, a substantive conception resists capture by a single principle. Meanwhile, in the US Supreme Court, conservative justices regard substantive equality as highly problematic. These in turn are reflected to some degree in legal formulae, such as unfair discrimination, disparate impact or indirect discrimination, reasonable accommodation and harassment. Scholars, legislators, and judges have elucidated various core meanings, chief amongst them, equality of results, equality of opportunity, and dignity. 5 Nevertheless, the meaning of the right to substantive equality remains elusive. Both the Supreme Court of Canada 3 and the South African Constitutional Court 4 have embraced the principle of substantive equality in interpreting the right to equality, a trend reflected at international level. These concerns have led to the quest for more sophisticated conceptions, moving from a formal understanding focused on like treatment, to more substantive conceptions. Even if equality before the law has been established, disadvantage persists, and this disadvantage tends to be concentrated in groups with a particular status, such as women, people with disabilities, ethnic minorities and others. Westen for one argues that “equality is an idea that should be banished from moral and legal discourse as an explanatory norm.” 1 For others, the right to equality does not go far enough. Yet the meaning of the right to equality is deeply contested. The aspiration towards equality resonates powerfully in the preambles of a multiplicity of human rights instruments and domestic constitutions, and the right to equality and non- discrimination are invariably among the core rights enumerated in these instruments. The right to equality is a central commitment in human rights law. It is thus not a definition, but an analytic framework to assess and assist in modifying laws, policies and practices to better achieve substantive equality. Conflicts should be addressed by referring to the whole framework, to create a synthesis rather than prioritizing. Drawing attention to all the dimensions and insisting on building complementarities can move us positively towards furthering substantive equality. The four-dimensional approach is deliberately framed in terms of dimensions, to permit us to focus on their interaction and synergies, rather than asserting a pre-established lexical priority. This reflects the principle that the right to equality should be responsive to those who are disadvantaged, demeaned, excluded, or ignored. ![]() Instead, drawing on familiar conceptions, a four dimensional approach is proposed: to redress disadvantage address stigma, stereotyping, prejudice, and violence enhance voice and participation and accommodate difference and achieve structural change. This article argues that the right to substantive equality should not be collapsed into a single formula, such as dignity, or equality of opportunity or results. However, the meaning of substantive equality remains deeply contested. The limitations of a formal interpretation of the right to equality are now well recognized.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |